Find a Lawyer

S. 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑ Stay‑Matter pending before criminal Court definitely not same as that pending before civil Court‑High Court's directive that criminal proceedings should continue but judgment not to be announced till decision of civil suit‑High Court further directing civil Court to expedite hearing of case‑High Court's order held proper and faultless in circumstances‑Penal Code (XGV of 1860), Ss. 379 & 468.

Mohammad Akbar v. The State P L D 1968 S C 281 ref.

M. Arif, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing :14th November 1972,

This leave petition is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner under sections 379 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

It appears that long after the institution of the criminal case the petitioner along with another person filed a declaratory suit in the civil Court at Lyallpur, claiming that they be declared as the owners of the disputed truck. In the criminal case the allegations were that the petitioner had sold the truck to respondent No. 2 on the 19th November 1968, for a sum of Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 9,000 were paid by way of first installment. Thereafter the petitioner had forcibly taken away the truck from respondent and in consequence the First Information Report was lodged with Ferozewala Police Station on the 25th April 1970.

It was contended before the High Court on the basis of the case of Mohammad Akbar v. The State (PLD1968SC281) that where both the criminal and civil litigations are pending between the parties the criminal Court should stay its hands if the question to be decided before the two Courts is precisely the same. The learned Judge ca a consideration of the document found that it was an out and out sale. However, the Court observed that this should not be taken to be the final opinion in the matter in view of the fact that the matter was still pending before the criminal Court. The learned Judge also found that the matter pending before the criminal Court was definitely not the same as that pending before the civil Court at Lyallpur. The learned Judge accordingly directed that the criminal proceedings should continue but the judgment in the case should not be announced until the decision of the civil suit. The learned Judge further directed the Senior Civil Judge, Lyallpur before whom the civil suit was pending to expedite the hearing of the case and decided it as expeditiously as possible and that long adjournments should not be given.

In the facts and circumstances of the case we think that the learned Judge's order is proper and does not suffer from any fault. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.